DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation in Long-Term Evolution (LTE) Networks
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com, Cc: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for <draft-sarikaya-v6ops-prefix-delegation-11.txt> The IESG has completed a review of <draft-sarikaya-v6ops-prefix-delegation> consistent with RFC5742. This review is applied to all non-IETF streams. The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation in Long Term Evolution (LTE) Networks' <draft-sarikaya-v6ops-prefix-delegation-11.txt> as an Informational RFC. The IESG would also like the RFC-Editor to review the comments in the datatracker (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sarikaya-v6ops-prefix-delegation/) related to this document and determine whether or not they merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot and the comment log. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sarikaya-v6ops-prefix-delegation/ The process for such documents is described at http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html Thank you, The IESG Secretary
Technical Summary This document specifies possible procedures for using RADIUS, DIAMETER, or DHCP-PD in the assignment of prefixes for mobile network gateways, so that they can hand them out for individual MNs. Working Group Summary This is an independent submission, not an IETF or WG item. Document Quality n.a. Personnel The responsible Area Director is Jari Arkko. RFC Editor Note IESG recommendation from RFC 5742: 2. The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work done in the V6OPS, 6MAN, and DHC WGs, but this relationship does not prevent publishing.